knapplc wrote:Don't be coy. It's obvious what you were asking and why. Your track record shows a history of these kinds of leading questions. It would be an assumption on my part had you never asked such a question, only to jump into some rant about this or that in the past. Since you've done so (and apparently continue to do so) it's no longer an assumption.
Maybe you're not familiar with my track record. I don't mince words, if I see something I disagree with I'm not shy about calling someone on it, and if I've caused any trouble here, I certainly haven't done so by being coy. I'm sure I've gotten under the skin of plenty of members here, but you're probably the only one who would accuse me of doing so in an indirect manner. Maybe you should spend less time reading into my posts, and more time reading them.
Again, the way STL worded his original post led me to believe that he was talking about a specific group ("these people" seemed very specific to me, and saying that they will attack "regardless of who leads these countries" made me think he was talking about someone who had attacked under the previous leader). Before jumping into the conversation I wanted to know if he was indeed talking about a specific group, and if so, which one. He said he was talking in general about terrorists and not specifically about any person or group. That was good enough for me, and I would have left the conversation there, but I've had to come back a couple times to try to explain why I asked that original question. That being good enough for me apparently wasn't good enough for you, though, because here we are halfway through page two.